Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Plantinga's argument for Design.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
    Dawkins is a serious academic scientist, and he finds the idea an "intriguing possibility" (though I'm betting he finds the probability about as low as Plantinga does).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
    Dawkin's consider ti an intriguing possibility that advanced extraterrestrial civilization 'seeded' life on earth. That is not what Plantinga proposed that I objected to. Plantinga sarcastically flipped out the option that intelligent extraterrestrials directed evolution to produce humanity. Remember initially he said, ' there is no other plausible option other then God.'

    Intriguing possibility' here is based on conjecture not science.

    <snip>
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-19-2014, 01:13 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #62
      Didn't you put me on ignore?

      Plantinga's argument doesn't deal with Methodological Naturalism, so not sure why you keep beating that horse. His argument deals with Metaphysical Naturalism.

      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Dawkin's consider ti an intriguing possibility that advanced extraterrestrial civilization 'seeded' life on earth. That is not what Plantinga proposed that I objected to. Plantinga sarcastically flipped out the option that intelligent extraterrestrials directed evolution to produce humanity. Remember initially he said, ' there is no other plausible option other then God.'

      Intriguing possibility' here is based on conjecture not science.

      <snip>
      You wrote: "No serious academic scientists consider any viable hypothesis for intelligent extraterrestrials being responsible for the origins of life nor the outcome of evolution. The only viable hypothesis for the origins of life for extraterrestrial origins is for basic amino acids form meteorites from our own solar system."

      If you listened to the interview, you know you're flat out wrong.

      Ben Stein: "What do think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics, or in evolution?"

      Richard Dawkins: "Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point."
      And again, this is what Plantinga said,

      Of course a naturalist might maintain that we have been designed and brought into existence by extraterrestrial beings of great intellectual accomplishments. Perhaps these extraterrestrials brought us into being by taking a hand in the course of terrestrial evolution, causing the right times, adjusting the environment, so the right organisms survived, and the like. This is a bit farfetched, perhaps, but not clearly impossible. But it won’t help the naturalist. For the same sort of questions arise about these talented extraterrestrials, presumably the notion of proper function will apply to them, but they weren’t designed. (Or, if they were, the question will arise with respect to their designers, or to the designers of their designers
      Dawkins both agrees with Plantinga that in the naturalist worldview an extraterrestrial designer is possible (however implausible), and he also notices the same end result that Plantinga does with this example.

      Originally posted by shunyadragon
      If you make a coherent statement I will respond.
      Careful how you respond now. If you reply to this post, I'll know that you believe I've made a coherent statement.
      Last edited by OingoBoingo; 03-19-2014, 01:46 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
        Didn't you put me on ignore?

        Plantinga's argument doesn't deal with Methodological Naturalism, so not sure why you keep beating that horse. His argument deals with Metaphysical Naturalism.
        False, his assumptions of what evolution can achieve and not achieve in terms of evolving life forms including humans is contrary to Methodological Naturalism. The only difference between Metaphysical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism is that Metaphysical Naturalism assumes there are no other possible explanations for the origins of our existence, but physical processes. This is a repeat of my previous explanation. I hope I do not have to do this again.

        You wrote: "No serious academic scientists consider any viable hypothesis for intelligent extraterrestrials being responsible for the origins of life nor the outcome of evolution. The only viable hypothesis for the origins of life for extraterrestrial origins is for basic amino acids form meteorites from our own solar system."

        If you listened to the interview, you know you're flat out wrong.



        And again, this is what Plantinga said,



        Dawkins both agrees with Plantinga that in the naturalist worldview an extraterrestrial designer is possible (however implausible), and he also notices the same end result that Plantinga does with this example.



        Careful how you respond now. If you reply to this post, I'll know that you believe I've made a coherent statement.
        All the reference so far provided represent conjecture and possibilities of Alien involvement and not serious science. If you are able to, please come up with real science, such as hypothesis or proposals of actual Alien involvement of any kind. Possibilities no matter how intriguing for seeding life, no matter who proposes them do not represent real science.

        Please cite something that does not represent conjecture, intriguing possibilities, or maybes in terms of real science.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Paprika View Post

          Show us the quote. Also, why aren't you quoting Plantinga directly?
          I gave the pages and the reference. I do not spoon feed. It is an adobe file and cannot be copied to post, besides the reference about three or four pages long. Bring it up on your computer and read it yourself. It describes in detail and cites Plantinga extensively about his support for Calvinist Reformed Epistemology.

          Again do you understand Calvinist Reformed Epistemology, and the relationship to the beliefs of Plantinga and Wolterstorff?
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-19-2014, 03:38 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            False, his assumptions of what evolution can achieve and not achieve in terms of evolving life forms including humans is contrary to Methodological Naturalism. The only difference between Metaphysical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism is that Metaphysical Naturalism assumes there are no other possible explanations for the origins of our existence, but physical processes. This is a repeat of my previous explanation. I hope I do not have to do this again.
            How many times does it have to be said that he isn't saying anything about what evolution can or cannot do? His argument is specifically against Metaphysical Naturalism. He tells his readers and his audiences this over and over again.

            Suppose you believe that there really is such a thing as proper function for our cognitive faculties (or for any natural organs or systems), and suppose you also believe that there is no naturalistic account, reduction, or analysis of the notion of proper function: then you have the materials for a powerful argument against metaphysical naturalism. This is an argument for the false-hood of naturalism: if your premises are true, naturalism is false. In this chapter I propose to develop two epistemological arguments against metaphysical naturalism - The Analytic Theist, Alvin Plantinga
            See also 3:47 in the video I just posted.

            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            All the reference so far provided represent conjecture and possibilities of Alien involvement and not serious science. If you are able to, please come up with real science, such as hypothesis or proposals of actual Alien involvement of any kind. Possibilities no matter how intriguing for seeding life, no matter who proposes them do not represent real science.

            Please cite something that does not represent conjecture, intriguing possibilities, or maybes in terms of real science.
            Of course it's purely conjectural. The hell do you think Plantinga wrote,

            Of course a naturalist might maintain that we have been designed and brought into existence by extraterrestrial beings of great intellectual accomplishments. Perhaps these extraterrestrials brought us into being by taking a hand in the course of terrestrial evolution, causing the right times, adjusting the environment, so the right organisms survived, and the like. This is a bit farfetched, perhaps, but not clearly impossible.
            Plantinga realizes its farfetched, and isn't directly dealing with any solid scientific hypothesis about aliens designing humans. All he's doing is accounting for a potential naturalistic argument for design (one that's open to consideration even by the likes of Dawkins), and then nipping it in the bud.

            I still cannot comprehend why you're flailing at an argument that supports your own personal worldview. As a Baha'i believer who is also an evolutionist, Plantinga's argument against metaphysical naturalism works in your favor. Other Baha'i believers find his arguments quite compelling:

            http://phulme.wordpress.com/2013/03/...deep-conflict/
            http://www.commongroundgroup.net/201...ralism-part-1/

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
              How many times does it have to be said that he isn't saying anything about what evolution can or cannot do? His argument is specifically against Metaphysical Naturalism. He tells his readers and his audiences this over and over again.
              Again for the last time: "First, then, if naturalism were true (so I argue), neither human beings nor their component organs and systems would function properly (or, for that matter improperly.)." This statement is in contradiction with Methodological Naturalism, which by the evidence can explain the above as occurring naturally.

              Of course it's purely conjectural. The hell do you think Plantinga wrote,
              Actually I agree, but this was in response to a post that said, 'Plantinga offered alternative explanations to 'proper function,' and I quoted Plantinga that the only plausible option is design and theism for his argument.

              I still cannot comprehend why you're flailing at an argument that supports your own personal worldview. As a Baha'i believer who is also an evolutionist, Plantinga's argument against metaphysical naturalism works in your favor. Other Baha'i believers find his arguments quite compelling:

              http://phulme.wordpress.com/2013/03/...deep-conflict/
              http://www.commongroundgroup.net/201...ralism-part-1/
              Bad arguments are bad arguments regardless, and Plantinga's arguments are bad and they misuse Methodological Naturalism and the theory of evolution.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Again for the last time: "First, then, if naturalism were true (so I argue), neither human beings nor their component organs and systems would function properly (or, for that matter improperly.)." This statement is in contradiction with Methodological Naturalism, which by the evidence can explain the above as occurring naturally.
                Assuming this is the case (and I'm not sure how even methodological naturalism can account for 'proper function'), this has nothing to do with Plantinga's argument against (read closely now) METAPHYSICAL Naturalism. He is NOT arguing against Methodological Naturalism, he is arguing against Metaphysical Naturalism. Do you understand the difference between Metaphysical and Methodological Naturalism?

                Originally posted by shunyadragon
                Actually I agree, but this was in response to a post that said, 'Plantinga offered alternative explanations to 'proper function,' and I quoted Plantinga that the only plausible option is design and theism for his argument.
                Plantinga was being charitable by offering some concept of 'proper function' to the metaphysical naturalist, no matter how far out. As a theist, and thus, not a metaphysical naturalist, you too (presumably) believe in 'proper function'. Would you deny a metaphysical naturalist any concept of 'proper function'? Would the concept of an extraterrestrial designer be so implausible as to be impossible?

                Originally posted by shunyadragon
                Bad arguments are bad arguments regardless, and Plantinga's arguments are bad and they misuse Methodological Naturalism and the theory of evolution.
                You sure do know something about bad arguments.
                Last edited by OingoBoingo; 03-19-2014, 06:24 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                  <snipe>
                  Let's deal with your reference by Plantinga, it is a little old, but a good one!

                  Let's pick this apart from the beginning.

                  Originally posted by http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/naturalism_defeated.pdf

                  Naturalism Defeated

                  In the last chapter of Warrant and Proper Function1 I proposed an "evolutionary argument against naturalism". Take philosophical naturalism to be the belief that there aren't any
                  supernatural beings--no such person as God, for example, but also no other supernatural entities.2 My claim was that naturalism and contemporary evolutionary theory are at serious odds with one another--and this despite the fact that the latter is ordinarily thought to be one of the main supporting beams in the edifice of the former.3 More particularly, I argued that the conjunction of naturalism with the belief that human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine--'evolution' for short--is in a certain interesting way self-defeating or selfreferentially incoherent. Still more particularly, I argued that naturalism and evolution--'N&E' for short--furnishes one who accepts it with a defeater for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable--a defeater that can't be defeated. But then this conjunction also furnishes a defeater for any belief produced by our cognitive faculties, including, in the case of one who accepts it, N&E itself: hence its self-defeating character.
                  The problem here is that the Theory of Evolution is a product of Methodological Naturalism, and it is neutral to the claims of any belief system to justify itself over another belief system as Plantinga does in Theism vs. Atheism (Metaphysical Naturalism.) The theory of Evolution in this context adequately explains all the physical and mental attributes of the human species as a product of natural evolutionary processes.

                  Originally posted by Plantinga

                  But if naturalism is true, there is no God, and hence no God (or anyone else) overseeing our development and orchestrating the course of our evolution. And this leads directly to the question whether it is at all likely that our cognitive faculties, given naturalism and given their evolutionary origin, would have developed in such a way as to be reliable, to furnish us with mostly true beliefs. Darwin himself expressed this doubt: "With me," he said, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?8 The same thought is put more explicitly by Patricia Churchland. She insists that the most important thing about the human brain is that it has evolved; this means, she says, that its principal function is to enable the organism to move appropriately: Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?8 The same thought is put more explicitly by Patricia Churchland. She insists that the most important thing about the human brain is that it has evolved; this means, she says, that its principal function is to enable the organism to move appropriately: Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival [Churchland's emphasis]. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.
                  This has been adequately explained by Methodological Naturalism as naturally evolved character of all species involved. These statements reflect bad claims by ID proponents and not science. The main problem here is Plantinga is not professionally competent in the sciences of Biology and Geology (specifically paleontology, genetics and evolutionary biology to back this up, nor does he cite academic from Methodological Naturalist sources to support his assertions.

                  He also takes Darwin quotes out of context in an attempt up the fog index concerning the Theory of Evolution. Of course Darwin doubted his conclusions. This was a healthy scientific view of the unanswered questions concerning evolution. There are of course many unanswered question concerning evolution, but this issue should not be interpreted as a weakness in the Theory of Evolution.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-19-2014, 06:38 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Let's go for a qualified academic's well articulate objections to Plantinga's argument from the Calvinist Reformed Epistomology that believes there is no need for arguments to justify the existence of a theistic God. This citation is from

                    A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand: Plantinga on the Self-Defeat of Evolutionary Naturalism by Timothy O'Connor pp 129-134

                    in James Beilby, ed., Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument
                    Against Naturalism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001),

                    This book is loaded with better arguments then mine.


                    Originally posted by http://www.indiana.edu/~scotus/files/House_Divided.pdf
                    Let me bring the issue into sharper focus by yoking the cases of the Christian theist's response to the evidential bearing of evil on theism and the naturalist's response to the evidential bearing of evolutionary naturalism on R, and then posing a dilemma. Plantinga would say that the probability of theism given the facts of pain and suffering as we know them - P (T/E) - is (at best) inscrutable for the theist. Must the theist, if he is to adjust his beliefs properly, conditionalize on his ignorance, so to speak? There are four possibilities here:

                    (1) He must conditionalize on his ignorance and thereby come to regard the probability of theism itself as inscrutable for him in the circumstances. If one accepts this, one is also
                    likely to accept Plantinga's own verdict on the case of naturalism. But the larger upshot will be that every reflective person should come to withhold belief in R!

                    (2) He must conditionalize on his ignorance, but he need not come to judge the probability of theism as inscrutable. For he has an independent source of warrant that neutralizes
                    the potential defeater of his belief before it takes hold: the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit that sustains the Christian's confident trust in the existence and character of God.
                    This is a kind of evidence, in a broad sense of the term, that counteracts the potential impact of the inscrutability of P (T/E) for him.2 But if the theist should say this, why should not the naturalist say the same concerning the 'evidence' coming from his own tenacious belief that R?

                    (3) He need not conditionalize on his ignorance or modify his beliefs in any other way. Theism continues to have warrant for him. (But then by parity of reasoning the same
                    should hold for the naturalist.)

                    (4) He need not conditionalize on his ignorance, but he should adjust his belief concerning P (T/E). If theism is true, it is part of my design plan that I should believe T despite my inability to discern a priori P (T/E). But since it is also part of my design plan that I adjust my beliefs, as best I can, in the direction of greater probabilistic consistency, I should conclude that P (T/E) is high. Put differently, I should see on reflection that T's having a good deal of warrant for me commits me to believing tacitly that the probability of T on all the relevant evidence I possess is high. And because of the special status T has in my God-given design plan, it should trump any beliefs I may hazard concerning conditional probabilities governing T, i.e., my belief in T has more warrant than do any of my beliefs concerning the conditional probability of T on any particular proposition. Although Bayesian accounts of theory confirmation have a difficult time handling this fact, we clearly can rationally revise our estimates of conditional probabilities. (Consider a scientist who comes better to understand the implications of a complex theory and so revise his estimates of the probability of that theory on various bits of potential evidence.) But again, if this is so for the theist, what reason have we to assume it is different for the naturalist? If one is to challenge the propriety of the naturalist's doing this, it cannot depend on assuming facts about the design plan inconsistent with naturalism.

                    Of these four options, (1) will be implausible to all nonskeptics, and (2) strikes me as stretching the notion of evidence beyond useful limits, so that it becomes little more than a terminological variant on (4). Whichever way we go on (3) or (4) - a verdict that will reflect one's judgment on whether it is appropriate to extend the machinery of probability theory to belief kinematics quite generally - since parallel moves are ready to hand, the naturalist has nothing to fear from Plantinga's argument.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Still waiting for you to present "Plantinga's Theory of Warrant and 'Proper Belief'".....



                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Let's deal with your reference by Plantinga, it is a little old, but a good one!

                      Let's pick this apart from the beginning.



                      The problem here is that the Theory of Evolution is a product of Methodological Naturalism, and it is neutral to the claims of any belief system to justify itself over another belief system as Plantinga does in Theism vs. Atheism (Metaphysical Naturalism.) The theory of Evolution in this context adequately explains all the physical and mental attributes of the human species as a product of natural evolutionary processes.
                      The underlined claim above is false. ToE (as empirical science) does not explain recognised features of the mental such as intentionality. ToE as a philosophical position usually leads people to eliminative materialism, which 'explains' things like beliefs, thought, the self, freewill are all non-existent, illusions. But we'll get to that later....

                      Originally posted by shunyadragon
                      This has been adequately explained by Methodological Naturalism as naturally evolved character of all species involved. These statements reflect bad claims by ID proponents and not science.
                      false. In this quoted section Plantinga cites: (1) Darwin (who I don't think was an ID proponent... /sarcasm); and (2) Patricia Churchland, who is a secular philosopher who believes in eliminative materialism




                      Originally posted by Shunydragon
                      The main problem here is Plantinga is not professionally competent in the sciences of Biology and Geology (specifically paleontology, genetics and evolutionary biology to back this up, nor does he cite academic from Methodological Naturalist sources to support his assertions.

                      Instead of airily asserting that 'Plantinga is wrong', specifically point out the problem in the quote you chose.

                      What, exactly, is false about
                      the most important thing about the human brain is that it has evolved; this means, she says, that its principal function is to enable the organism to move appropriately: Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive.
                      ?


                      Secondly I note that Plantinga is a professional philosopher, that is prima facie fully qualified to address the philosophical implications of the ToE. If there are some facts from Geology or Biology that show that Evolution does not primarily select for a nervous system that has the role of getting "the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive." then present them here.
                      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                        Assuming this is the case (and I'm not sure how even methodological naturalism can account for 'proper function'), this has nothing to do with Plantinga's argument against (read closely now) METAPHYSICAL Naturalism. He is NOT arguing against Methodological Naturalism, he is arguing against Metaphysical Naturalism. Do you understand the difference between Metaphysical and Methodological Naturalism?
                        I do not agree with Metaphysical Naturalism, because it is an extreme no possible other options position of extreme atheism, but it is the same as Methodological Naturalism, except for the atheist philosophical assumption.

                        I also do not believe in the narrow view of 'proper function,' nor his view of Calvinist Reformed Epistemology as presented by Plantinga. I consider most humans functioning properly as basically human. I would consider many mentally ill and some alternately skilled not capable of normal decision making process. This judgment is subjective, and I will not make a generalization concerning who is and who is not properly functioning. I do not believe that people who believe differently, ie atheists, or other non-theist beliefs.

                        Plantinga was being charitable by offering some concept of 'proper function' to the metaphysical naturalist, no matter how far out. As a theist, and thus, not a metaphysical naturalist, you too (presumably) believe in 'proper function'. Would you deny a metaphysical naturalist any concept of 'proper function'? Would the concept of an extraterrestrial designer be so implausible as to be impossible?
                        I do not consider Plantinga charitable, nor is his view a charitable offering. Again, I do not believe in Plantinga's understanding of 'proper function.' In particular there is no coherent argument for Intelligent Design to support such an argument. An extraterrestrial designer is extremely implausible, because there is absolutely no objective evidence that would even hint at the possibility of such a scenario. This is presented as a rather sarcastic implausible alternative that would fit a 'Design' scenario. The problem is there is absolutely no support for any 'design' scenario based on Methodological Naturalism. See the Dover trial records to demonstrate this up front.



                        You sure do know something about bad arguments.
                        Yes, I have some knowledge, but I rely on others more qualified then I, and use their references.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-19-2014, 08:37 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I do not agree with Metaphysical Naturalism, because it is an extreme no possible other options position of extreme atheism, but it is the same as Methodological Naturalism, except for the atheist philosophical assumption.
                          Then you are on the same page as Plantinga. As Plantinga explains in the video I presented, "When i use the word 'naturalism', what I mean is, really, the belief that there is no such person as God or anything like God. So naturalism is stronger than atheism. Naturalism entails atheism, but atheism does not entail naturalism."

                          In other words, his argument is not against Methodological Naturalism, which could leave an individual concluding that god/s do not exist, but against an extreme position (Metaphysical/Philosophical Naturalism) that presupposes that god/s certainly do not exist.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon
                          I also do not believe in the narrow view of 'proper function,'
                          You're either ignorant as to what Plantinga means by 'proper function' or you're a liar. As a follower of Bahá'u'lláh, Abdu'l-Bahá, Shoghi Effendi, and the major and minor prophets, you certainly DO believe in proper function. They clearly taught that humans had a proper function. In fact Abdu'l-Bahá specifically taught that humans were a "special" species.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon
                          nor his view of Calvinist Reformed Epistemology as presented by Plantinga.
                          As far as I can tell, belief in Plantinga's view of Calvinist Reformed Epistemology is not a requirement of his argument against Metaphysical Naturalism.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon
                          I consider most humans functioning properly as basically human. I would consider many mentally ill and some alternately skilled not capable of normal decision making process. This judgment is subjective, and I will not make a generalization concerning who is and who is not properly functioning. I do not believe that people who believe differently, ie atheists, or other non-theist beliefs.
                          You're again showing that you have no idea what Plantinga means by 'proper function'. When Plantinga says 'proper function' he's referring to the belief that the mind (and other organs) function as they were intended to. There is no such thing as 'purpose' or 'intention' in the worldview of the Metaphysical Naturalist.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon
                          I do not consider Plantinga charitable, nor is his view a charitable offering. Again, I do not believe in Plantinga's understanding of 'proper function.' In particular there is no coherent argument for Intelligent Design to support such an argument. An extraterrestrial designer is extremely implausible, because there is absolutely no objective evidence that would even hint at the possibility of such a scenario. This is presented as a rather sarcastic implausible alternative that would fit a 'Design' scenario. The problem is there is absolutely no support for any 'design' scenario based on Methodological Naturalism. See the Dover trial records to demonstrate this up front.
                          Your posts do not at all reflect the arguments that Plantinga is making. To be blunt, your arguments suck, and its clear that you have no idea what you're talking about (as usual in my encounters with you). As I said before, you are the very definition of the maxim, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". The only reason I've been responding to your posts is because you are SO off base that I fear for the sanity of lurkers who may be mentally poisoned by your ridiculous assumptions about arguments that you are ignorant of, or that you do not have the mental capacity to grasp.
                          Last edited by OingoBoingo; 03-19-2014, 09:41 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                            Still waiting for you to present "Plantinga's Theory of Warrant and 'Proper Belief'".....
                            If you would have read my reference on Calvinist Reformed Epistemology you would know. IF you were ignorant of it before, you would now be informed, with cited references by Plantinga in the above.

                            Alvin Plantinga believes in the Calvinist Reformed Epistemology that humans have a sensus divinitatis or “sense of the divine,” considering that the belief in God could be properly basic. Based on this Plantinga argues that attempts to reject Christian theism is unwarranted. Also he believes that arguments for God are not necessary.

                            The underlined claim above is false. ToE (as empirical science) does not explain recognised features of the mental such as intentionality. ToE as a philosophical position usually leads people to eliminative materialism, which 'explains' things like beliefs, thought, the self, freewill are all non-existent, illusions. But we'll get to that later....
                            Assertions not based on any objective evidence, and poisoned by your assumption where ToE leads. The Theory of Evolution itself is not a philosophical position, Methodological Naturalism is the dominant scientific philosophy position. It is impossible to falsify an hypothesis or theory to prove a negative such as, describing what cannot be accounted for by the natural processes of evolution. Your assumption that the ToE 'usually leads' to Metaphysical Naturalism, sets the stage for a very bad argument, nonetheless it is false. Let's deal with the role of Methodological Naturalism, and the ToE concerning the nature of being human. The claim that eliminative materialism explains things like beliefs, thought, the self, free will as non-existent, illusions is not an issue here, and you need not get into that later . . .


                            false. In this quoted section Plantinga cites: (1) Darwin (who I don't think was an ID proponent... /sarcasm); and (2) Patricia Churchland, who is a secular philosopher who believes in eliminative materialism
                            These citations are side tracks, distractions and irrelevant to the issue of can Methodological Naturalism provide a 'plausible explanation' based on the objective evidence for humanity and the nature of being human.



                            Instead of airily asserting that 'Plantinga is wrong', specifically point out the problem in the quote you chose.

                            What, exactly, is false about ?
                            No problem, his entire quote asserting that Methodological Naturalism's ToE cannot provide an explanation for the physical nature of humanity and our intelligent nature is without foundation in the science of ToE.


                            Secondly I note that Plantinga is a professional philosopher, that is prima facie fully qualified to address the philosophical implications of the ToE.
                            Maybe, this is a gray area, but Plantinga is most definitely not qualified to assert what the ToE can or cannot be capable of concerning the physical nature of humans nor human nature of our behavior and intellect.

                            If there are some facts from Geology or Biology that show that Evolution does not primarily select for a nervous system that has the role of getting "the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive." then present them here.
                            What do you mean in the bolded part? It would take an encyclopedia of ToE to present all the evidence and knowledge here. Nonetheless ToE has an adequate explanation for the evolution of life, and humanity. More then 95% of all scientists accept the explanation of the ToE on the evolution of life and humanity based on Methodological Naturalism without reservation.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-19-2014, 10:36 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              make that citation from a recent work of Plantinga, say 2009 to 2014.

                              How ridiculous can you get, shunya?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Paprika View Post

                                How ridiculous can you get, shunya?


                                Not ridiculous at all. Without citations, your arguments are 'air balls.'
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,504 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X